At this point, and it's pains me to admit it because the genre's been with me since my formative teenage years, but I have a terrible case of zombie fatigue. If I read a synopsis for a new project—be it movie, TV show, web series, or just a pack of cute baseball cards—and it mentions the word "zombie," my eyes blur, my brain begins to fog, and I head to the nearest soft area to take a comfort nap, hoping when I wake this whole zombie renaissance will be over.
That said, the film adaptation of Max Brooks's wonderful World War Z has sucked me back in. Possibly because there's an unspecific "train wreck" element to the whole thing: there's no way a big budget Christmas-release has the balls to use the best aspect of the book (i.e., the Ken Burns looking-back-with-talking-heads documentary approach), meaning it will likely instead settle for standard apocalyptic action fare and, really, who cares? But I'm still devouring any advance spoiler/hints at what to expect, so when this LA Times profile on Brad Pitt found its way onto my computer screen, my Internet scan-reading of it went something like this: "Blah, blah, Moneyball, blah, blah, blah, who cares, bam!"
For Pitt, the big sci-fi thriller also represents his strongest bid to have a big film franchise of his own, which might be viewed as the missing piece of his career jigsaw puzzle. Forster and Paramount Pictures each view "World War Z" as a trilogy that would have the grounded, gun-metal realism of, say, Damon's Jason Bourne series tethered to the unsettling end-times vibe of AMC's "The Walking Dead"
Bolding mine. Of course, a whole bunch of that trilogy plan depends on how well the first movie's received. (If this, the "most expensive zombie movie ever made" tanks, no doubt Paramount will pull the plug on the other two.) But seeing as apocalyptic zombie adventures have been printing money over the last five years, seems like we may have three movies on tap to watch Brad Pitt run away from hoards of the undead.